Crow's Eye: Maintaining a commitment to Pointless Acrimony™ and Hate Filled Invective™! Also available in corvid mischief and traditional sly dog's mistrust.

"...it's not the training to be mean but the training to be kind that is used to keep us leashed best." ~ Black Dog Red

"In case you haven't recognized the trend: it proceeds action, dissent, speech." ~ davidly, on how wars get done

"...What sort of meager, unerotic existence must a man live to find himself moved to such ecstatic heights by the mundane sniping of a congressional budget fight. The fate of human existence does not hang in the balance. The gods are not arrayed on either side. Poseiden, earth-shaker, has regrettably set his sights on the poor fishermen of northern Japan and not on Washington, D.C. where his ire might do some good--I can think of no better spot for a little wetland reclamation project, if you know what I mean. The fight is neither revolution nor apocalypse; it is hardly even a fight. A lot of apparatchiks are moving a lot of phony numbers with more zeros than a century of soccer scores around, weaving a brittle chrysalis around a gross worm that, some time hence, will emerge, untransformed, still a worm." ~ IOZ

Mar 12, 2013

Well?

Why can't we have a society where the sick, the depressed, the lonely, the broken are sheltered? Why is this anathema? Why are we actively thwarted in establishing a polity, a Commons, where a a person who is clinically depressed receives care as a priority? Why must society be arranged so that the cruel, the hard and the domineering receive all the social benefit, where people who can use others and dispose of them have all of the machinery of state and culture and advancement at their disposal, but where a child who cannot explain her sadness is just supposed to shut up and get tough in order to prove her moral worth?

Why is that men who rape and abuse are routinely forgiven their transgressions, in a set of networks organized to isolate their pasts as off-limits to their present, but a woman who "experiments" once is a whore now, was a whore then, and always ever after will be a whore?

How is it that a relatively small cabal of people who treat others as mere tools can order up and maintain vast armies, exploitative systems, niche polluting power systems, alienating transportation grids and whole continents as rent extraction regimes, but basic survival for the rest of us is a drain on the system?

Is this natural, inevitable, the consequence of merely being human, or is it in fact a history imposed from above, enforced with violence and privation, and therefore subject to alteration?

History & Impose & Above: Pathetic fallacy. Social relations are fluid, not linear. At times, though, more exploitative. So: Check minus. And, yes, subject to alteration, especially as humans learn to work sustainably within Malthusian conditions of scarcity. Learn to get over the false consciousness of zero sum society game. Process is slow and not always progress. The question is whether Process will keep up with necessity.

Malthus was wrong. Nature is not Malthusian. Scarcity is not natural. Populations are not merely algorithms. And "above" accepts as observational and demonstrable that we have rulers. That rulers exist does not suggest (a) that they ought to (b) or that must necessarily and obviously be thus.

Since this is a descrtiption of western culture it is a natural outcome, among other possible outcomes, but it was never ever inevitable. That cultures less cruel have existed in the past is proof that this is so. To conclude that this is the only natural outcome because this is what the west is would be absurd. In my opinion I should say since I am no expert

To briefly expand on my previous motion (and as you were so generous in extra-linking a line that brings me to this nexus):

Maybe the most complete way to challenge this order would involve an admission of guilt that is too damaging for the average rube to consider, but at any rate, involves work. The paradox being that it seems easier to wage-slave away or - if I might use Devin Lenda's recent box-supporting analogy - to put more effort maintaining the status quo than into the effort it would take to supplant it.

The reality is that we are part of an aristocracy of sort. The very space where this conversation is happening is shut off to many. This silent population is where true change will come from.

To admit guilt as part of an oppressive system is one thing, but to attempt to change it in a long-lasting way is quite another. Over-educated first-world lower-classes like us have proven capable of the former, while the latter eludes us more than ever.

As our status of first-worlder loses its meaning, our minds will migrate from mass-mediated political scandals to actual person-to-person organizing.

he pens jack , you seem well enough to write and live a little .., so i/we need to get back to why and how you misunderstood something here , back- oct 2, cause .. and / after i wrote the comments here on that one and got such an unseeing ,un hearing ..response ..to my voice/voicing , something of this went out in to the streets here a little ,and it was clear to all the varying of the out here that you were unseeing,misreading on something of my commenting , i put a hold on til summer to taking it further in the streets and out beyond these roads/atwood'.. . because i need to fin. up on something else of work , being the most extreme of a feminine womb, means that i never leave a job undone , and in that of so gentle and kind of nature .. always done in the fairest way .. .

She...Her...a muse, her own self, that sweetness on the morning dew side of the leaf...

I don't kid myself that I've stumbled upon a unique insight and I have little doubt that someone has already written or said this better than I. Five minutes after I hit the "publish" button, I'll probably regret the choice of words more than I already do now - because it's difficult to get my head outside of English language usage, to comment on a problem with that usage, whilst using the English language to do so.

In the interest of not making more of an ass of myself than necessary, I've pared a very long thesis down to a paragraph:

I find it troubling that, using English, I have very limited choice in expressing how I relate to people with whom I have ongoing interaction. If I want to reference the nature of my relations with the woman who has challenged me to grow in ways I never imagined possible, the woman who howled with a primal, gorgeous, earth shattering, mother bear of a refrain, transcending pain and pleasure in act of creation to which I will never be immediate party, who has with her defiant and proud womanhood still intact forged a family out of disparate parts - I have to write "my wife." I have to reduce her to property. That really pisses me off. I don't own her. I don't fucking want the title or the claim. I don't want to express possession, simply to refer to her (without writing a discursive dissertation). I don't like one bit that the short hand for "association" in English is expressed in the possessive. I don't own my wife or my children. They're not mine.

So, fuck you Latin and Germanic branches of the Indo-European language group.

Until today I had the same attitude towards Robert Greenwald as I do Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and most other representatives of the w...

"Now assholes and bureaucrats, take my advice...You’d better walk clear and you’d better talk nice...‘Cause we’re hot on your trail and we’re not on your side...Better forward your mail, shoot your wounded and ride...‘Cause when we’ve got all you desk jockeys safe behind bars...Claimed some of the neon, and some of the cars...Me and Billy and Oscar and the girls and guitars...Will be down in the gutter, looking up at the stars..." ~ James Luther Dickinson, The Ballad of Billy and Oscar